From: John Cowan (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:24:35 EDT
Michael Everson scripsit:
> So, you're saying, no one has asked IETF whether or not they would be
> able to countenance a dozen or so changes for unimplemented things
> like biblical accents.
The IETF has an explicit contract with Unicode: "We'
ll use your normalization algorithm if you promise NEVER, NEVER to change
the normalization status of a single character." Unicode has already
broken that promise four times, so its credibility is shaky. 14 new
changes is indeed a radical change from this point of view, and would
IMO break the promise beyond repair.
> I don't think anyone is proposing a *radical* change.
Unfortunately, you don't understand what is "radical" here. Unicode
could have done all sorts of things -- normalized simplified characters
into traditional ones, even -- and W3C would probably have swallowed it.
What it can't swallow is a lack of stability in Unicode's commitments.
I'm on the XML Core WG and the I18N Interest Group, so I'm not talking
out of my ass here.
> Well, y'all are gonna have to do something, and adding duplicate
> characters to ISO/IEC 10646 is not going to be well-received, because
> there isn't anything broken in ISO/IEC 10646.
So far I have not heard any compelling objections to CGJ except that
invisible characters are fuggly.
> You could explain the problem with these Hebrew accents, and ask them
> to help by accepting a change. Shivering in a cave for fear of the
> monsters outside isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People of good
> will can often come to enlightened consensus.
Not when their core values -- correctness vs. stability -- are made to
be at odds.
> >Change the character classes in Unicode 4.1, and they *might* decide to
> >freeze support at, say, Unicode 3.0.
> Or they might understand the problem. People aren't all *that*
> stupid, methinks.
They -- that is, I -- do understand. To understand all is *not* to forgive all.
-- Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan ear. However, I would suggest you wash your firstname.lastname@example.org hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.reutershealth.com --gadicath http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 10:01:15 EDT